Jump to content
DanteGabriel

US Politics: RIP EHK FYVM GOP

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

See my post above, please.

lmao why? nothing you said there in anyway refutes anything in my post. but go ahead, explain to my why some of these authoritarian policies where put in place that had nothing to with say, the united states and other capitalist western powers attempts to subvert a direct challenge to their neoliberal hegemonic rule. or would we prefer going down the list of authoritarian terrors commutes by capitalist counties? again, you are being nothing of substance, just deflexrion and weasley whataboutism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I’ve never said that.  There are plenty of socialist nations that aren’t run by “horrible douchebags”.  They are democratic socialists who don’t feel the need to use Mao and Lenin’s methods of taking and holding onto power in Marx’s name.

My point is that those Nations that have claimed to be “Marxist” in conception (not Socialist) have to the best of my knowledge all been authoritarian in nature. 

This in no way invalidates Marx’s criticism of capitalism.  It simply suggests that “Marxists” attempting to push what they see as Marx’s ideals upon people tend to run the authoritarian route.  Given their poor track record perhaps the Democratic Socialist track is one that is more effective and worthwhile than the Marxist Socialist track?

Okay, but here is the thing. You don't have a ton of alternatives. At least in the United States. Republicans in general have embraced fascism wholly. I'm as confused as you are why this is the case, but the signs are all around us. 

I have a lot of young, working-class relatives. I would just like to leave a better world behind than I have found in my time. I have a hard time seeing why social programs such as the ACA are a bad idea. From my view of things, we have not done enough.

Edited by Martell Spy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, a good and nice guy said:

lmao why? nothing you said there in anyway refutes anything in my post. but go ahead, explain to my why some of these authoritarian policies where put in place that had nothing to with say, the united states and other capitalist western powers attempts to subvert a direct challenge to their neoliberal hegemonic rule. or would we prefer going down the list of authoritarian terrors commutes by capitalist counties? again, you are being nothing of substance, just deflexrion and weasley whataboutism

So, substituting Socialist authoritarianism for Captialist authoritarianism is an improvement?  It all seems authoritarian to me.  

Hence, my suggestion that Democratic Socialism seems a more viable option than authoritarian socialism.  

But that’s just me...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I’ve never said that.  There are plenty of socialist nations that aren’t run by “horrible douchebags”.  They are democratic socialists who don’t feel the need to use Mao and Lenin’s methods of taking and holding onto power in Marx’s name.

My point is that those Nations that have claimed to be “Marxist” in conception (not Socialist) have to the best of my knowledge all been authoritarian in nature. 

This in no way invalidates Marx’s criticism of capitalism.  It simply suggests that “Marxists” attempting to push what they see as Marx’s ideals upon people tend to run the authoritarian route.  Given their poor track record perhaps the Democratic Socialist track is one that is more effective and worthwhile than the Marxist Socialist track?

I got your back on this one, Scott. Genuinely, for what it's worth. Going Full Marxist is both fantastical and undesirable. Human beings are dumb animals and need opportunities for aggrandizement of self at the detriment of others. That the vast majority are unable to capitalize on said opportunities does not diminish the need for the illusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Mother of The Others said:

Do we really believe the Republicans are the ones who ended facts? 

Yes.  110 percent yes.  And that's a fact as well.  Your rants are weak-sauce.  And really whiny, frankly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yes.  110 percent yes.  And that's a fact as well.  Your rants are weak-sauce.  And really whiny, frankly.

Hey! Stop attacking my new toy, I'll cut you bitch! 

Toy, sic 'em!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

So, substituting Socialist authoritarianism for Captialist authoritarianism is an improvement?  It all seems authoritarian to me.  

Hence, my suggestion that Democratic Socialism seems a more viable option than authoritarian socialism.  

But that’s just me...

yes scot, that’s exactly what i am saying, quite a gift for comprehension you have there. but thank you for the clarification, i was a little concerned i was arguing with an ultra, glad to hear you have the stance of being anti authoritarian and i’m sure you are very invested in seeing an egalitarian revolution and would not decry even milquetoast socdem policies as tyranny of the worker against the poor oppressed business owner

 

14 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

I got your back on this one, Scott. Genuinely, for what it's worth. Going Full Marxist is both fantastical and undesirable. Human beings are dumb animals and need opportunities for aggrandizement of self at the detriment of others. That the vast majority are unable to capitalize on said opportunities does not diminish the need for the illusion.

but hey, at least you got jace with you here. love the technocratic misanthropy, very cute. tell me jace, who exactly are these “dumb animals” who can’t “capitalize on said opportunities” and why they can’t get ahead? feel free to really get into the nitty gritty of the american underclass and what in your opinion are their particular failures? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, a good and nice guy said:

yes scot, that’s exactly what i am saying, quite a gift for comprehension you have there. but thank you for the clarification, i was a little concerned i was arguing with an ultra, glad to hear you have the stance of being anti authoritarian and i’m sure you are very invested in seeing an egalitarian revolution and would not decry even milquetoast socdem policies as tyranny of the worker against the poor oppressed business owner

 

but hey, at least you got jace with you here. love the technocratic misanthropy, very cute. tell me jace, who exactly are these “dumb animals” who can’t “capitalize on said opportunities” and why they can’t get ahead? feel free to really get into the nitty gritty of the american underclass and what in your opinion are their particular failures? 

You wrong me, friend. I am humanity's champion. As the dominant species on this planet we are privilege to an unparalleled gift. But we, all of us, are still animals. Driven by base desires and simplistic needs. There are a very rare few who are capable of transcending those universal wants, but the opportunity to be one of them is important. 

I'm not, and won't pretend I am, intrinsically better than anyone. And in fact, the very notion that I would suggest some 'elite' being above the aforementioned dumb animals is something I find offensive. Most people are incapable of changing the world or pushing the species forward, that is a fact. It doesn't change that they deserve to believe they can. Because the simple belief itself, that "I could be a great person!" is crucial to our concept of society. And complete abandonment of competition for resources is an inherent threat to the principal drivers of human ambition. The desire to have more.

Is this response helpful? I know I can be a bit hard to pin down on some issues, but I would like to dispel any and all confusion on this matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just want to touch on something from the last thread from @Simon Steele, it’s not gerrymandering that made mcconnell so effective, but his ability to see the federal political framework for what it is (not sure if you are a grey wolf/chapo guy but matt chrostman has a good analysis of this) but basically the federal system, up to and including the electoral college, is designed in such a way to (unintentionally) reward a party, based upon purely ideological lines as opposed to broad coalitions aligned along geography) with complete intransigence. makes some compelling arguments against both relying on electoral politics and the democrats idiotic reliance on appearing ‘bipartisan’

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

You wrong me, friend. I am humanity's champion. As the dominant species on this planet we are privilege to an unparalleled gift. But we, all of us, are still animals. Driven by base desires and simplistic needs. There are a very rare few who are capable of transcending those universal wants, but the opportunity to be one of them is important. 

I'm not, and won't pretend I am, intrinsically better than anyone. And in fact, the very notion that I would suggest some 'elite' being above the aforementioned dumb animals is something I find offensive. Most people are incapable of changing the world or pushing the species forward, that is a fact. It doesn't change that they deserve to believe they can. Because the simple belief itself, that "I could be a great person!" is crucial to our concept of society. And complete abandonment of competition for resources is an inherent threat to the principal drivers of human ambition. The desire to have more.

Is this response helpful? I know I can be a bit hard to pin down on some issues, but I would like to dispel any and all confusion on this matter.

hmmm... ok, [take 2, rrl trying to be a zen good and nice guy here]

first off, no, not really sure what you are trying to say, but i — of all people —absolutely get the inability to put words to thoughts in a clear and concise way, so it’s cool. 

but i am still unclear on what you are getting at... are you trying to say that the world is fucked, and there is little any one person can do to save it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Has there been a Government calling itself “Marxist” that hasn’t been a nasty authoritarian regime claiming to act for “the greater good”.

Has there been a Government that hasn’t been a nasty authoritarian regime claiming to act for “the greater good”?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, a good and nice guy said:

hmmm... ok, [take 2, rrl trying to be a zen good and nice guy here]

first off, no, not really sure what you are trying to say, but i — of all people —absolutely get the inability to put words to thoughts in a clear and concise way, so it’s cool. 

but i am still unclear on what you are getting at... are you trying to say that the world is fucked, and there is little any one person can do to save it?

I don't know what "rrl" means and got fifty thousand answers from Google.

You basically got it, but change the perspective a bit. I think human beings, the individuals, are fucked. Done in by our own vanities, delusions, and biases. But the species, well that's another story. If you are familiar with historical analyses you may be familiar with Tends and Forces vs Great Man theories? 

Well, Jace thinks that the truth is in both concepts. There are individuals who are smarter or stronger or charming-er than everyone else. The circumstances that those people are exposed to (created by the rest of us who are more static) mold them and dictate their ambitions. Eventually, this is an evolutionary appraisal of social dynamics (NOT social Darwinism), a figure will be produced who can respond to the circumstances and direct the broader communal conscience towards fulfilling their vision. 

Sometimes those people are monsters. Adolph Hitler, William of Sicily, or Bradley Cooper to name a few. Sometimes you get a Dr. King, or a Gandhi, or if you're really lucky an Irene. But it's not something that can be controlled by any one individual. Even the figure who is able to accrue influence and authority is bound by the forces that made and continue to empower them. The job of societies, and therefore of the few exceptional individuals who would deign to guide them, should be to create as many circumstances as possible to positively dispose its members towards their fellows while encouraging growth.

Growth requires competition, and benevolence requires want. 

Now what I am not saying is that kids should be kept in cages or that people should exist in poverty when alternatives are possible. But instead that these realities will foster a response. What that response is, I have no fucking clue though I lean pessimistic by nature as a defensive measure. What does not help anyone are Rodenberry-esque fantasies of a perfectly harmonious society that by-its-very-nature would cede the developed impulses to inspire change in its members. That's just silliness.

I'm all for democratic socialism, but Marxism is a very outdated concept that we as a species have already improved upon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, a good and nice guy said:

what do y’all think the role of government actually is?

An transaction of personal liberties in exchange for communal benefits.

Or something like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, a good and nice guy said:

what do y’all think the role of government actually is?

Establishing a monopoly on the use of force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

I don't know what "rrl" means and got fifty thousand answers from Google.

You basically got it, but change the perspective a bit. I think human beings, the individuals, are fucked. Done in by our own vanities, delusions, and biases. But the species, well that's another story. If you are familiar with historical analyses you may be familiar with Tends and Forces vs Great Man theories? 

Well, Jace thinks that the truth is in both concepts. There are individuals who are smarter or stronger or charming-er than everyone else. The circumstances that those people are exposed to (created by the rest of us who are more static) mold them and dictate their ambitions. Eventually, this is an evolutionary appraisal of social dynamics (NOT social Darwinism), a figure will be produced who can respond to the circumstances and direct the broader communal conscience towards fulfilling their vision. 

Sometimes those people are monsters. Adolph Hitler, William of Sicily, or Bradley Cooper to name a few. Sometimes you get a Dr. King, or a Gandhi, or if you're really lucky an Irene. But it's not something that can be controlled by any one individual. Even the figure who is able to accrue influence and authority is bound by the forces that made and continue to empower them. The job of societies, and therefore of the few exceptional individuals who would deign to guide them, should be to create as many circumstances as possible to positively dispose its members towards their fellows while encouraging growth.

Growth requires competition, and benevolence requires want. 

Now what I am not saying is that kids should be kept in cages or that people should exist in poverty when alternatives are possible. But instead that these realities will foster a response. What that response is, I have no fucking clue though I lean pessimistic by nature as a defensive measure. What does not help anyone are Rodenberry-esque fantasies of a perfectly harmonious society that by-its-very-nature would cede the developed impulses to inspire change in its members. That's just silliness.

I'm all for democratic socialism, but Marxism is a very outdated concept that we as a species have already improved upon. 

ah, gotcha. to further your point, as mlk, one those great men said “i have a dream, a dream that better things aren’t possible. where we all live on a tiny island amidst this sea of prosperity, and be glad that we don’t down in it! and when the sea levels rise, and our tiny island disappears under the waves, we shall build a raft of palm trees, and float along, upon the tranquil seas, until we perish of thirst or hunger, but knowing in our hearts, and be glad, that we did it make ourselves a nuisance of those that made the world this way.”

inspiring stuff jace, thank you for the shift in perspective. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

An transaction of personal liberties in exchange for communal benefits.

Or something like that.

6 minutes ago, AverageGuy said:

Establishing a monopoly on the use of force.

thanks for answering the rhetorical questions guys. now, do you think any government anywhere is going to claim it’s not operating “for the greater good”?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, a good and nice guy said:

now, do you think any government anywhere is going to claim it’s not operating “for the greater good”?

Pretty much the socialist government's raison d'être, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, AverageGuy said:

Pretty much the socialist government's raison d'être, no?

of course. the distinction being socialist policies actually are dealing ed to benefit the vast majority of people, ie the greater good. the point being, if you can keep up, that every government is going to say it is acting on the greater good, so simply taking that at face value without examining the material facts of how that government operates is naive to the point of childishness

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×